Should 'collected in' be included in the location transcription?
-
by
am.zooni
I've just transcribed a label (Image ANN0004fa8) that says 'Collected in the Bonnet Carre Spillway near a burrow pit.'
I put 'Bonnet Carre Spillway' in LOCATION and 'near a burrow pit.' in HABITAT AND DESCRIPTION. I think I'm correct that far (please tell me if I'm not!). But should the 'Collected in the' part be included in the LOCATION or omitted from the transcription?
Can I get a #scientist preference on this? I have been inconsistent in how I transcribe this kind of thing (found in, collected near), and that can't be good.
Posted
-
by
Mr._Kevvy
Just in case you don't get a #scientist response, I can answer with about 99% certainty that as we're supposed to make minimal changes to the original text/transcribe as written (to enable consensus) other than splitting Habitat/Location and eliminating personal "fluff" that it should be kept. ie "Collected in Hammond" would go verbatim into Location and "Collected in mesic forest" would go verbatim into Habitat/Description... same with "Growing in" or "Growing along"; there are many words like this that don't really add to the informational content and could be eliminated but this would wreck the consensus.
Posted
-
by
am.zooni
Ok, thanks, that makes sense.
It's still often a challenge to decide how to split habitat and location. #nevergetsboring
Posted
-
by
Mr._Kevvy
in response to am.zooni's comment.
You're welcome. :^)
re: "It's still often a challenge to decide how to split habitat and location."
Agreed; there are few to no guidelines. I made that a focus of the rewrite to the FAQ (which is taking a while to get posted or responded to) as I think it's going to be the biggest consensus barrier.
Posted
-
by
HelenBennett57
in response to Mr. Kevvy's comment.
Mr. Kevvy: totally agree.
I guess making simpler, less interpretive decisions gives us a better chance of a consensus transcription.
Posted